Talk:Sam Tyler
This page needs to be locked from future edits. It's obvious that the person who is editing the part about Eve and Sam is extremely confused about the episode and needs to watch it again before they make a bigger fool of themselves. When Sam stops Eve to persuade her to fit up Tony, he gives her a gold fob watch, not a crown chip. This is apparent to anybody who watches the episode with functioning eyes and ears. I would recommend strongly against banning everyone from ever making changes to a page because one contributor appears to have made a minor factual error. In general, even an error-filled entry is preferable to one consisting of insults and name-calling. Perhaps if the previous contributor learns to follow the current rules against abusive entries, then he or she might be ready to propose new ones. Jwessex 01:18, April 22, 2012 (UTC) Funny, nobody said anything about banning but locking the page. There is nothing more to add and keeping it open does nothing but encourage vandalism. Perhaps Jwessex needs to learn to read more and jump the gun less. Probably the same dink who though a watch was a chip XD Thanks for your comments. Let me respond to each of your points. First, the distinction you make between "locking page from future edits," (as you suggested), and "banning everyone from ... making changes to it," (as I paraphrased it), is not entirely clear, but I would suggest that the salient point is whether it gets done, not how it gets phrased. I would have to respectfully disagree that nothing can be added to the page and that the open status will only encourage vandalism. I know from my own experience re-reading my own entries, that there always seems to room for improvement. The fact that you yourself found a fundamental factual error in the page would seem, in itself, to argue against locking. Besides, foregoing future changes would seem to be appropriate only in the circumstance that a page is considered to be perfect, or has been the target of repeated, annoying vandalism. The latter has not happened, and the former would, given the co-operative nature of the wiki, seem to require some kind of consensus among contributors or administrators. Perhaps if you feel strongly about it, you could try to create such a consensus. In any case, we should be reassured that even the most offensive entry can be reversed quite easily. I think that covers your substantive points. I won't address your final comments except to encourage you to continue making contributions to the site while observing the rules that are there to protect everyone (including you and me) from negative personal comments. Looking forward to your future contributions, Jwessex (talk) 23:48, August 7, 2012 (UTC) "Factual errors" would not have happened in the first place if it was locked. Locking also doesn't affect everyone, just non-registered users. Why is that such a problem? Nothing more can be added to Sam Tyler. It's done. The chance of a new series involving Sam Tyler is slim. Being dismissive to limted access edits is your choice. I'll not be around to clean it up when someone decides to correct something that doesn't need correcting. It could be easily fixed, but i guess you can't be arsed. — Thanks again for your comments, and again I'll try to respond to each one of your points. Thanks for clarifying that you are not suggesting locking everyone out, but just non-registered users. However, since you seem to be one yourself (you haven't used a user name yet), as I pointed out last time, we would end up locking out people like you who have made a useful contribution. I don't think I ever indicated that it would be a "problem", I simply disagreed with your suggestion. I'm not sure how restricting contributions to registered users would eliminate factual errors. It has not been my observation that this is the case. I know I've made a few howlers in my time. Whether anything can be added to the Sam Tyler page is, of course, a matter of opinion. I agree that we are unlikely to see Sam make a new appearance, but, as I'm sure you know, that would not be the only reason for making changes. As you proved, factual errors can still occur, but there are also typographical errors, grammatical errors, unclear prose, and yes, even new insights and observations. Fresh eyes, fresh minds, new ideas. I hope that I have not been "dismissive" of your suggestion. I do, respectfully, disagree, and I have said why. I am sorry to hear you will not be around to make further contributions. I hope your absence will not be permanent. Your final comment was a little puzzling to me, since I don't think I have ever given the impression that I don't care about the wiki or that I can't be bothered to deal with this issue. (I think the amount of time spent corresponding with you should dispel that notion.) However, I realized you may be labouring under the misapprehension that I have some authority with regard to allowing or barring edits. I don't. I apologise if gave that impression. I just wanted to give my (disenting) opinion and keep discussion civil. As I mentioned previously, you could try to gather support for your suggestion from other members, and perhaps an administrator would act on your suggestion. If you can be arsed, that is. ... kidding!